AI News HubLIVE
原文3 min read

DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models

DeFAb is a dataset and pipeline converting four decades of public knowledge bases into defeasible abduction benchmarks. A symbolic solver achieves 100% accuracy in under 50 microseconds, while the best frontier LLM reaches 65% and drops to 23.5% under robust evaluation. The benchmark uses polynomial-time verifiable checks to measure logical rigor and creativity. It releases 372,648+ instances, along with harder variants and a Lean 4/Mathlib creative variant.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Patrick Cooper, Alvaro Velasquez

[2606.18557] DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models

[Submitted on 17 Jun 2026]

Title:DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models

View a PDF of the paper titled DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models, by Patrick Cooper and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A rule-based logic solver resolves every instance in our benchmark in under 50 microseconds with 100% accuracy; the best frontier language model reaches 65% at best and drops to 23.5% under rendering-robust evaluation (worst case over four surface renderings). We introduce DeFAb (Defeasible Abduction Benchmark), a dataset and generation pipeline that converts four decades of publicly funded knowledge bases into formally grounded instances for defeasible abduction: constructing hypotheses that explain anomalies by overriding defaults while preserving unrelated expectations. Because every hypothesis must pass polynomial-time checks for valid derivation, conservativity, and minimality, DeFAb makes logical rigor the instrument for measuring creativity and theoretical reasoning, scoring the disciplined construction of theory revisions rather than fluent but theory-destroying prose. The pipeline pairs taxonomic hierarchies (OpenCyc, YAGO, Wikidata) with behavioral property graphs (ConceptNet, UMLS) to produce 372,648+ instances across 33.75M materialized rules from 18 sources, in three levels with polynomial-time verifiable gold standards. Four frontier models do not reliably internalize defeasible reasoning: rendering-robust Level 2 accuracy is 7.8-23.5%; chain-of-thought variance (~36 pp) exceeds any inter-model gap; and a matched contamination control isolates a +19.4 pp Level 3 gap. We further release DeFAb-Hard (a 235-instance Level 3 difficulty variant; best model 53.3% vs 100% symbolic) and CONJURE (a kernel-verified transformative-creativity variant of 560 Lean 4/Mathlib instances whose gold answers are definitions the proof kernel did not previously contain, judge-free verifier; a pilot finds zero novel concepts). The same verifier doubles as an exact reward for preference optimization (DPO, RLVR/GRPO). Released under MIT at this https URL.

Comments: 33 pages, 14 figures, 23 tables. Dataset: this https URL ; code and evaluation harness: this https URL

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO)

MSC classes: 68T27, 68T30, 68T05, 03B70

ACM classes: I.2.3; I.2.4; I.2.6; I.2.7

Cite as: arXiv:2606.18557 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.18557v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.18557

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Patrick Cooper [view email] [v1] Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:13:40 UTC (272 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models, by Patrick Cooper and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG cs.LO

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)